Ball tampering, does every team do it?

[Furball]

You think the Law should cater for and encourage reverse swing?

The law as it stands allows for players to shine the ball, thus altering its condition, in order to aid conventional swing.

I don't see why teams shouldn't be allowed to alter the state of the ball to get it to reverse.

As long as no foreign objects are being used on the ball, I genuinely have no objections to fielding sides doing whatever they want to with the ball in order to try and aid wicket-taking, whether that's keeping it shiny to swing it, scuffing it to reverse it, picking the seam, whatever.

 

[Goughy]

The law as it stands allows for players to shine the ball, thus altering its condition, in order to aid conventional swing.

I don't see why teams shouldn't be allowed to alter the state of the ball to get it to reverse.

As long as no foreign objects are being used on the ball, I genuinely have no objections to fielding sides doing whatever they want to with the ball in order to try and aid wicket-taking, whether that's keeping it shiny to swing it, scuffing it to reverse it, picking the seam, whatever.

The current law allows for maintaining the condition of the ball and improving it.

If you are allow to 'destroy' one side of the ball, should it be replaced before the new ball is due if required?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If you are allow to 'destroy' one side of the ball, should it be replaced before the new ball is due if required?

This is the key bit. The line has to be drawn somewhere or the ball will be destroyed beyond use and have to be replaced.

 

[Furball]

The current law allows for maintaining the condition of the ball and improving it.

If you are allow to 'destroy' one side of the ball, should it be replaced before the new ball is due if required?

If that's the case, why is picking the seam a no-no then?

I don't really have the technical knowledge to answer your second question I'm afraid.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If that's the case, why is picking the seam a no-no then?

Presumably because it can be too easily exploited for the opposite effect.

 

[Goughy]

Here is the thing. If I am allowed to damage the ball, as you suggest, then if I dont like a ball (seam went flat early, not swinging etc) then I will just make it unplayable and force a switch.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Here is the thing. If I am allowed to damage the ball, as you suggest, then if I dont like a ball (seam went flat early, not swinging etc) then I will just make it unplayable and force a switch.

This.

I alluded to the same point in an earlier post. Even a ball of the same "age" that may replace it, invariably acts differently to the ball it replaces.

 

[Richard]

Pitches like in New Zealand 2002/03 are every bit as bad for cricket as roads which allow batsmen to pile on runs and render bowlers irrelevant.

I wouldn't quite go that far, but I don't want to see either (nor those like Wankhede 2004/05) be anything bar a pretty small minority. I want to see most pitches be either a little seam-friendly or a little spin-friendly.

 

[Richard]

In fairness, the Code of Conduct states:

The following actions shall not be permitted (This list of actions is not exhaustive but included for illustrative purposes):
• Deliberately throwing the ball into the ground for the purpose of roughening it up;

So such an action is just the umpire trying to enforce the law. Of course it's pretty much impossible to know what "purpose" is, without the fielders explicitly stating it.

Attempting to prevent the fielders throwing the ball into the wicketkeeper on the bounce is absurd. It's fair enough to have such a stipulation to stop them standing there and repeating fifteen times the action of picking it up and hurling it full-pelt at the ground, but not to stop them throwing it in on the bounce.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Attempting to prevent the fielders throwing the ball into the wicketkeeper on the bounce is absurd. It's fair enough to have such a stipulation to stop them standing there and repeating fifteen times the action of picking it up and hurling it full-pelt at the ground, but not to stop them throwing it in on the bounce.

I'm just saying that umpires do have a right to call the fielders on that. The Law literally gives them the right to do so, using their discretion. If the fielders aren't happy with it, they can report it to a higher authority.

 

[Goughy]

The people advocating being able to damage the ball have not thought it through.

 

[Richard]

I have - I just don't feel the problems are actually problems. Me, I don't have any objection to the prospect of the bowlers changing the ball whenever they want to - batsmen can do such with their bats.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But if a bowler is allowed to constantly have a new ball at his disposal, it does take a big tactical part out of the contest, for mine. Also wastes a lot of time in a game that already struggles for efficiency.

 

[Goughy]

I have - I just don't feel the problems are actually problems. Me, I don't have any objection to the prospect of the bowlers changing the ball whenever they want to - batsmen can do such with their bats.

Let me take that to the extreme (there are plenty of other problems that are less amusing.)

Imagine a Test going into the last hour. 30 runs for the batting team to win. According to your rules the bowling team could request a ball change every ball and bowl (possibly) 4-5 overs only.

 

[Faisal1985]

Define tempering with the ball?

Does spit shining constitute ball tempering?

IMO, everyone tempers with the ball aka changes the condition of the ball by shining it...to answer your question...

However, if the question would have been, whether their should be limitations in how much tempering should be allowed then yes, Afridi's actions fall in an extreme category of tempering....

 

[Goughy]

Define tempering with the ball?

Does spit shining constitute ball tempering?

It is defined in the rules as detailed in this thread and the answer to your question is 'No'

 

[Richard]

Let me take that to the extreme (there are plenty of other problems that are less amusing.)

Imagine a Test going into the last hour. 30 runs for the batting team to win. According to your rules the bowling team could request a ball change every ball and bowl (possibly) 4-5 overs only.

How so? There's a specific stipulation that 15 overs must be bowled once the last day of a Test reaches 1 hour before the scheduled close.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

How so? There's a specific stipulation that 15 overs must be bowled once the last day of a Test reaches 1 hour before the scheduled close.

And time wasting happens anyway.

 

[Richard]

But no amount of time-wasting stops that rule from being applied, so thus time-wasting in the last hour is pointless. And how many Tests even make the last hour on the last day with a result still in prospect? Very few.

(And of those which do make it without said prospect, the last hour is almost always called-off to save wasting everyone's effort.)

 

[dikinee]

So those of you who support ball tampering are saying we should be able to pick and chose which rules we follow and which ones we break. There is a reason we have rules and if you think a particular rule is inappropriate there are ways of having that rule changed but you need to go through the correct channels. So until they change that rule then it still applies and should be adhered to.